Gated Class Feats? Hell, yeah!

[Midnightoker]

Leedwashere wrote:

Then if you have a class feat that alters a style, it would probably start with something along the lines of: "When you use double slice..."

You can even be more ubiquitous than that with the framework they have already by applying traits a little more uniformly (personally I find it a bit redundant that Class Feats have the name of the class as a trait, obviously those are Class specific).

Just like all feats that involve attacking have the "Attack" trait, you could subsequently make a trait for "Ranged", "Double", etc. and then apply Class Feats that modify feats with those traits.

Then if you want to be a TWF Rogue and you want to invest in a Rogue style of TWF, they can spend a Class Feat that modifies all "Double" trait Feats:

Devious Double
Whenever you use an action with the "Double" and "Attack" traits and successfully Feint against an opponent in the same round, you can apply 1 and 1/2 of your Sneak Attack dice (rounded down) to the first damage roll instead of the standard dice amount.

If you critically succeeded on your Feint, you only apply the increased dice count to the first roll.

[Leedwashere]

Excaliburproxy wrote:

You know what also might be cool? Maybe everyone could get a "subclass" or "achetype" automatically at certain levels.

I think I would be alright with something like this if there was also a benefit to doubling-down on your existing class.

Sort of like how the Kineticist works. Every so often you can expand into another element, or achieve extra potency in your existing element(s).

Just as I wouldn't want to be unable to multiclass, I wouldn't want to be forced into it either.

[WatersLethe]

I also think there is not enough design space to make every single combat style have N number of flavorful variations where N equals the number of classes so far published.

You can say "Paladins should do archery in a paladiny way and rogues should dual wield in a roguey way", but how many asinine variations will there be? How many cut and pastes will there be? How many people will say the ~*~class fantasy~*~ version of a particular fighting style isn't to their taste after all?

It should cut to the chase and make general combat feats that cater to a variety of styles in clear-cut ways like PF1e combat feats did, then add the flavor on top of that via the class.

A paladin using Power Attack with added holy damage from smite is Power Attacking in a paladiny way in my book. A rogue adding sneak attack damage to their arrows is using archery in a roguey way.

[master_marshmallow]

These sorta already existed in PF1 to an extent (and became much more well defined in the RAE later) where certain functions of the class improved one's ability to participate in combat and then determined which style was most appropriate, but didn't bar you from using the others.

Rogue's sneak attack was most complimented by TWF, for multiple reasons, but mostly in that you didn't want to sacrifice too much attack boni to gain net damage overall. The standard action system required a much larger chain of feats to make this worth it, because you needed Combat Expertise, TWF, and Two-Weapon Feint. In RAE you needed the same number of feats, but could take Improved Feint much earlier (and it wasn't even required, it only reduced the action cost). One could build for 'power attack' like builds, like elves building for curve blades, but the increased negative on attacks and the overall damage payoff wasn't worth it given the medium BAB.

Paladins and magi gravitated towards a single weapon focused on bursts of damage because their class abilities mandated the ability to have a free hand to use either Spell Combat or Lay on Hands.

When barbarians really got going and had massive numbers of rounds of rage to burn through (more than they needed in a day) they could spend extra rounds on Raging Brutality, and given their propensity for high STR builds anyway, ranged options became less and less appealing and single big melee hit builds builds were optimal to maintain a balance of resources, it also skyrocketed the damage potential on power attack.

Rangers made the best archers because they could skip feat prerequisites for the best archery feats and it didn't interrupt their regular feat progression (hint hint), which also meant they had a free hand in between attack actions to cast spells for buffs and utility (though ime most of their best buffs were either all day things cast early on or all spent on Instant Enemy for pseudo-smiting). Favored Enemy became something to either build around Instant Enemy, which was a silly spell that seemed to negate the ranger's niche, but when it was core only it sorta just mitigated the penalties for archery.

Fighters had the freedom of having enough feats to really explore any of these styles to their fullest extent, and could gain more utility by focusing on a single style and spending the rest of their normal resources on other things, this is where Advanced Weapon/Armor training really shined. Combat Stamina was pure gold as far as game mechanics go, but required so much reading that most people didn't bother with it and the fact that it wasn't allowed in PFS completely took it off the map. Shame.

Monks are a weird case, because the Unchained RAE really seemed to favor the core monk, while the normal action system favored the Unmonk. Until Haste came online, in which case Unmonk was king of martial combat given the ability to make 3 attacks at full BAB with no penalties (more with ki).

Now all of these combos stemmed from system mastery and rules competence, negating the necessity of which is an obvious (and admirable) design goal. It would seem instead of letting players find that out organically, we have the current iteration of the rules where certain styles are gated by class choice, rather than by their mechanical and mathematical implications at the table.

Given the action system and how well RAE performed in practice, I'm genuinely flabbergasted at how poorly combat has turned out in my play tests. It would seem the desire to make sure the +/-10 crit system applies to all d20 rolls all the time would mean that you have to keep the respective boni within such a range that the players feel like those rules remain relevant at all times in all dimensions of the game, even in cases (like attack rolls) where the bottom half of those results is the same. I've no interest personally in taking too many feats that are focused on 'Failure' enhancements, though it would seem the intent is there for those abilities to have more value than planning on failure would seem to imply.

[Zamfield]

Wow, that was a long thread to catch up on. It seems to have touched on a lot of things and I had thoughts on all of them, so I'll just make a couple of quick points.

Seems like people would like:
* A player should be able to be good at everything that the "vanilla" class can do without needed to spend their customization picks to get there.
* Players like have choices that let them specialize or focus their class, like being better at archery than the average fighter, or better at wild shape than the average druid, or better at two weapon fighting than the average ranger. i.e. no two wizards should be exactly alike.
* There should be some amount of room for players to do secondary things without making themselves into a worse version of the average class. e.g. A bard that gets into fencing duels for fun and profit instead of playing cover tunes at the local inn.

Instead
* The play-test classes seem set up to only allow you to focus one aspect of your class at the expense of all the other features.
* There is little room for flavorful class feature choices in the existing lists because core features require following a feat train to stay relevant as you gain levels. Scaling features or feats would be an improvement that frees up extra picks.
* Dabbling in another class's territory requires you give up core competency. e.g. a barbarian that taps into their rage in a way that lets them cast a flavorful cantrip ala bloodrager style must necessarily become a severely hampered barbarian.

There was a bunch of pf1/pf2p/4e/5e comparisons that I didn't fully understand, but seem to boil down to rigid classes versus flexible class choices. I don't agree with all of these points, but these are what I think people have said.

Rigid:
* Class features should be unique, and if you want them, then play that class, don't poach with multi-classing shenanigans.
* We should have more full progression classes/archetypes rather than letting people mix and match.
* Players should not be good at anything other than their own class. If they want to have ability in anything not granted by their class, they should suffer.

Flexible:
* Class features should be flavorful to that class, i.e. bards do their thing their way, and rogues do it differently.
* It should be possible to pick up any ability for a price or trade-off.
* Fighting styles should be divorced from class features or feats. e.g. we don't have an archer class, so archery should be available to any class.

I think this really stems from two motivations for playing a TTRPG. The tabletop crowd, that likes miniatures, maps and tactics seem to want solid roles that are balanced and prevent people from excelling at too many roles. The other crowd are RP gamers that want to tell stories with characters that are unique, multifaceted, and reasonably effective both in and out of combat.

I like to think I'm both, but honestly I probably tend towards the RP gamer, in that I would rather read posts about pop-culture character builds than min-max optimization boards.

I also think that people should remember that this play-test is supposed to push the boundaries of what is playable. So yeah, you should dislike some things, and it isn't unreasonable to dislike most of the play-test. Instead you should play it, objectively, and give feedback of both positive aspects and the negative aspects explaining exactly what you want to do, and how you could or could not do it.

Here is the story of what worked and didn't work for my chapter 3 build:

I wanted to make a druid that was good at more than just wild shape, but I couldn't since wild shape class feats didn't scale, and choosing an order locked me out of other core druid class features. Those class feat choices weren't meaningful or exciting, it was just pick everything that had the wild order trait and be like *every* other druid that chose wild order. This completely precluded dabbling in anything non-druid at all.

The other feat buckets (skill, general, heritage, and ancestry) seemed small and the choices did not always seem like they expanded your character so much as brought your character back to par from past edition experience. But I did like them being separate and not haven't to compete with each other since a skill feat and a class feat were leagues apart in power level and flexibility.

Using archetype feats for multi classing looks like a really clean way of handling class variation, but having to use precious class feats for them is really punishing in a way that pf1 base/hybrid and archetypes were not. If my druid were to take fighter in order to be a better polymorph brawler for example, not only would the fighter dedication not really help unarmed attacking, but then my overly specialized wild order build would suffer as well.

That said, the druid I created felt mechanically fun to play, and I liked that I could use spell selection to add some variety. I also had some fun roleplaying him because he was a dwarf that liked being above ground in the woods. But overall the character lacked depth and I felt like I had too few options to make him stand apart from any other druid that was rolled up.

Perhaps that is the point of the play-test. To funnel people into very narrow builds to find out the limits of what is playable, powerful, flexible, or fun by reducing the number of variables in the experiment. If so, then it makes sense that there were people unhappy with both the rigidness parts and the flexibility parts.

[Staffan Johansson]

Midnightoker wrote:

But if you make that Class Feat, then Paladins, Rangers, etc. all have to choose to be good at Archery over being able to use Lay on Hands, Snares, etc.

That could be fixed with appropriate siloing. Currently, classes get class feats every even level. You could fix things so you'd get combat style-type feats compete with one another at some levels, and class feature-type feats compete with one another at others.

But then again, I'm a proponent of strong class identity. In my mind, if you can create a character that's almost the same by using two different classes in a class-based system, something has gone seriously wrong somewhere.

Quote:

Classes are way to Feat starved at the moment to be able to keep a Combat style while also maintaining an identity (at least the non-caster classes, as casters don't really need a lot of combat feats)

That's a separate issue. That could be fixed by making a larger portion of the class part of the class's core, or in a number of other ways.

[Midnightoker]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

That could be fixed with appropriate siloing. Currently, classes get class feats every even level. You could fix things so you'd get combat style-type feats compete with one another at some levels, and class feature-type feats compete with one another at others.

But then again, I'm a proponent of strong class identity. In my mind, if you can create a character that's almost the same by using two different classes in a class-based system, something has gone seriously wrong somewhere.

Except siloing "feature" feats and "combat" feats under the same umbrella is twice the print work, requires a major overhaul in classifications of Class Feats, and requires you to effectively double the Class Feat count.

Where as relegating some of the broadstroke Class Feats (Cleave, Sudden Charge, Metamagic, Double Slice) to General Feats and giving a General Feat at level 1 solves the problem as well (which is what people are asking for in this space.

The latter has less repeated print, adds more value to General Feats (which currently are lacking and almost always used for Skill Feats), and still allows for the modification of these General Feats through Class Feat interactions (various suggestions on how to do this).

Quite frankly, the first method is more pages of print, requires a heavy rebalance, duplicated rules sets, and a slew of other issues. It also doesn't solve the "what kind of TWF do I wanna be? Better go read every single classes version" problem.

When the job calls for a hammer, you use a hammer shrug.

Quote:

That's a separate issue. That could be fixed by making a larger portion of the class part of the class's core, or in a number of other ways.

It's not a separate issue. Right now we are forced to pick between being good at combat or being a unique version of our Class. This is directly because Class Feats are heavily integrated with "gating" of the above style feats.

When core class features and combat tactics (archer, twf, metamagic, etc.) occupy the same space, you force people to choose identity or effectiveness.

Now your suggestion would also solve this problem, but I find it far more drastic than moving some obviously unnecessary gated feats to common territory (especially since they've already indicated they recognize the gating as they plan to offer some form of Double Slice to Rogues and have SC to Barbarian).

The only major argument I can think of from moving the feats like Cleave/SC/Double Slice to General Feat pool is that they might overshadow other General Feats in that pool. However, I'd argue it would make much more sense to balance the feats in that pool accordingly (and a lot less top down overhaul of the power levels).

[Alchemaic]

Midnightoker wrote:

It also doesn't solve the "what kind of TWF do I wanna be? Better go read every single classes version" problem.

You know, thinking about it that might be part of the problem I have personally. When I make a character I don't say "I want to play a Rogue, so let me see what variety of Rogue I want to be this time", I say "I feel like being a sneaky stabby person, or a super skillmonkey, or a whirlwind of knives and anger" and then because of my previous experience with the game I might gravitate towards Rogue for that character. PF2e on the other hand is structured more to benefit someone who goes into character creation in the other way, where they say "I want to make a Rogue, so let me see what kind of Rogues are available to me right now."

[Rob Godfrey]

Rules Artificer wrote:

EberronHoward wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Oh for the days of PF1e when people would be gently ribbed for even using the word "tank".

I'm just glad we don't have anything that compels enemies to drop everything and attack you regardless of circumstances; that's a line I'm unwilling to cross.

Agreed, a Taunt that determines "aggro" is a line in the sand for me. If I see something like this it's getting house-banned faster than limp lash.

Well, Retributive Strike has been working pretty well to get my GM to always attack me instead of the other PCs. I personally don't think it's that enforcing, but then again, neither was Divine Challenge in 4th edition.

As a means of tanking that doesn't involve Aggro mechanics, Retributive Strike does a good job. Enemies don't want a free hit on them (that comes with a debuff), so they hit the Paladin instead.

I do, however, have some pretty significant issues with Retributive Strike being the Paladin's primary class feature.

- It is only effective countermeasure against particular threats, and even then isn't clearly defined.
RT's trigger is "A creature within your reach hits an ally or friendly creature." Does it trigger on ranged attacks? What about spells that deal damage? What about harmful effects that don't require an attack roll?
Then there's the issue that Retributive Strike always requires the Paladin to be within reach of the opponent, and never upgrades from this requirement. For melee, a creature can easily move to the opposite side of a creature and strike. Ranged attacks (including most spells) can easily circumvent this requirement. Where's the mid-level option to be able to at least move up to our speed before making a Retributive Strike? Also, what's a ranged weapon build Paladin to do?

- Retributive Strike is a class feature you want to never have to use. It's the threat of being walloped that makes an enemy reconsider attacking your...

Retributive Strike feels really passive, I have had it go off to good results(and other fights it never activated), but as a core class feature it feels off, a Paladin isn't (or wasn't) about being the meat shield, they get in the face of the enemies of the faith and end them, that is a totally different philosophy to being a walking kick me sign, and by it's nature forces one true buildism, pretty much reach weapon (to maximise RS chances) and heaviest armour you can find. Which leaves Abaddar and Erastil in the cold for starters, and really changes the feel of the class from the Smite based, aggressive play style to hanging out next to other characters hoping they eat a charge so you can RS the attacker.. I mean when it works I debuff a target, but it doesn't feel heroic, it's almost like the character is a terrain hazard.

[RealAlchemy]

To me, the core class features for paladin were smite evil, immunity to disease, lay on hands, and divine grace. Because of this, I was disappointed that a lot of those abilities were set up so that if you wanted them you could not get other abilities.

[Rob Godfrey]

RealAlchemy wrote:

To me, the core class features for paladin were smite evil, immunity to disease, lay on hands, and divine grace. Because of this, I was disappointed that a lot of those abilities were set up so that if you wanted them you could not get other abilities.

Pretty much, adding options to make them the tank ok, I guess, if you want to make the classic roles more explicit, removing things to force that on them not so much

[The Sideromancer]

Alchemaic wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

It also doesn't solve the "what kind of TWF do I wanna be? Better go read every single classes version" problem.

You know, thinking about it that might be part of the problem I have personally. When I make a character I don't say "I want to play a Rogue, so let me see what variety of Rogue I want to be this time", I say "I feel like being a sneaky stabby person, or a super skillmonkey, or a whirlwind of knives and anger" and then because of my previous experience with the game I might gravitate towards Rogue for that character. PF2e on the other hand is structured more to benefit someone who goes into character creation in the other way, where they say "I want to make a Rogue, so let me see what kind of Rogues are available to me right now."

Several times, I've been asked by a friend of mine that they need e.g. a rogue NPC. I pride myself on the ability to make the entire theive's guild distinct from one another, despite class similarities. So I guess your view only works when "what kind of rogues are available" is a large set.

[Midnightoker]

The Sideromancer wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

It also doesn't solve the "what kind of TWF do I wanna be? Better go read every single classes version" problem.

You know, thinking about it that might be part of the problem I have personally. When I make a character I don't say "I want to play a Rogue, so let me see what variety of Rogue I want to be this time", I say "I feel like being a sneaky stabby person, or a super skillmonkey, or a whirlwind of knives and anger" and then because of my previous experience with the game I might gravitate towards Rogue for that character. PF2e on the other hand is structured more to benefit someone who goes into character creation in the other way, where they say "I want to make a Rogue, so let me see what kind of Rogues are available to me right now."

Several times, I've been asked by a friend of mine that they need e.g. a rogue NPC. I pride myself on the ability to make the entire theive's guild distinct from one another, despite class similarities. So I guess your view only works when "what kind of rogues are available" is a large set.

I may be reading it wrong, but I think his point is that rarely do people pick the Class first, most pick a concept and then see where the execution can be done.

If your concept is TWF in this case, you have to read X different entries to see how it functions for X classes, as opposed to reading 1 entry, and then deciding later if you want to take a Class Feat that modifies the 1 entry (with respect to your class).

For instance in your Guild scenario, it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that many of the members aren't even Rogues (in name at least). Either way, the concept usually comes first for the Guild member, and then the implementation can take whatever form is appropriate.

[in◆⃟]

Leedwashere wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

You know what also might be cool? Maybe everyone could get a "subclass" or "achetype" automatically at certain levels.

I think I would be alright with something like this if there was also a benefit to doubling-down on your existing class.

...
Just as I wouldn't want to be unable to multiclass, I wouldn't want to be forced into it either.

This is the case for Gestalt For All. If you'd rather not take a second class, you could Gestalt your own class and play a Cleric//Cleric with twice as many spell slots and two domains.

[Alchemaic]

Midnightoker wrote:

The Sideromancer wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

It also doesn't solve the "what kind of TWF do I wanna be? Better go read every single classes version" problem.

You know, thinking about it that might be part of the problem I have personally. When I make a character I don't say "I want to play a Rogue, so let me see what variety of Rogue I want to be this time", I say "I feel like being a sneaky stabby person, or a super skillmonkey, or a whirlwind of knives and anger" and then because of my previous experience with the game I might gravitate towards Rogue for that character. PF2e on the other hand is structured more to benefit someone who goes into character creation in the other way, where they say "I want to make a Rogue, so let me see what kind of Rogues are available to me right now."

Several times, I've been asked by a friend of mine that they need e.g. a rogue NPC. I pride myself on the ability to make the entire theive's guild distinct from one another, despite class similarities. So I guess your view only works when "what kind of rogues are available" is a large set.

I may be reading it wrong, but I think his point is that rarely do people pick the Class first, most pick a concept and then see where the execution can be done.

Yeah, you have it about right. Not to say that I don't do that on occasion when there's a cool new archetype released for a class (or when trying out a new class for the first time), but those are the exception instead of the rule.

[David Silver - Ponyfinder]

in◆⃟ wrote:

Leedwashere wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

You know what also might be cool? Maybe everyone could get a "subclass" or "achetype" automatically at certain levels.

I think I would be alright with something like this if there was also a benefit to doubling-down on your existing class.

...
Just as I wouldn't want to be unable to multiclass, I wouldn't want to be forced into it either.

This is the case for Gestalt For All. If you'd rather not take a second class, you could Gestalt your own class and play a Cleric//Cleric with twice as many spell slots and two domains.

That sounds broken compared to the other options. Simply, being able to take your own class as an archetype would do, and would NOT do what you describe.

Unless everyone gets archetype feats for free, you would not at as well. Meaning you'd be better off just plunking more feats down on actual class feats to be better at your class.

[Belisar]

Actually a fighter in PF2 get's 31 feats till level 20 while the same fighter just receives 21 feats in PF1. So actually even if a PF2 char multiclasses via archetype to receive some wanted gated feats he will still be better of in PF2. And this archetype feat approach is way more flexible than stuffing fixed subclasses and fixed abilities to fixed levels. I like it to be able to choose class abilities via class feats than gaining fixed abilities like it has been in PF1.
I do not understand why assigning fixed class abilities are making characters more unique than chosing from a pool of plenty class feats, like many argue.
And if you want to have every feat being accessible for every char you can literally scrap the class concept and then have everybody choose abilities freely like they see fit. Create feats to access spellcasting, create general feats to access rogue abilities and everybody can truly make unique characters.

[Rob Godfrey]

Belisar wrote:

Actually a fighter in PF2 get's 31 feats till level 20 while the same fighter just receives 21 feats in PF1. So actually even if a PF2 char multiclasses via archetype to receive some wanted gated feats he will still be better of in PF2. And this archetype feat approach is way more flexible than stuffing fixed subclasses and fixed abilities to fixed levels. I like it to be able to choose class abilities via class feats than gaining fixed abilities like it has been in PF1.

I do not understand why assigning fixed class abilities are making characters more unique than chosing from a pool of plenty class feats, like many argue.
And if you want to have every feat being accessible for every char you can literally scrap the class concept and then have everybody choose abilities freely like they see fit. Create feats to access spellcasting, create general feats to access rogue abilities and everybody can truly make unique characters.

How many of those 31 are skill feats? How many ancestry feats?

[Midnightoker]

Belisar wrote:

Actually a fighter in PF2 get's 31 feats till level 20 while the same fighter just receives 21 feats in PF1. So actually even if a PF2 char multiclasses via archetype to receive some wanted gated feats he will still be better of in PF2. And this archetype feat approach is way more flexible than stuffing fixed subclasses and fixed abilities to fixed levels. I like it to be able to choose class abilities via class feats than gaining fixed abilities like it has been in PF1.

I do not understand why assigning fixed class abilities are making characters more unique than chosing from a pool of plenty class feats, like many argue.
And if you want to have every feat being accessible for every char you can literally scrap the class concept and then have everybody choose abilities freely like they see fit. Create feats to access spellcasting, create general feats to access rogue abilities and everybody can truly make unique characters.

As someone mentioned less than half of those are combat oriented (Skill, General, Ancestry)

And you're not counting he abilities fighters get that are now made into Feats, Weapon Specialization, Bravery, Armor Spec, etc

[WatersLethe]

Rob Godfrey wrote:

How many of those 31 are skill feats? How many ancestry feats?

And how many of those skill and ancestry feats were built into base skills and ancestries in PF1e? And how many feats need to be used to acquire things you would have gotten from a class passively?

[Data Lore]

WatersLethe wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

How many of those 31 are skill feats? How many ancestry feats?

And how many of those skill and ancestry feats were built into base skills and ancestries in PF1e? And how many feats need to be used to acquire things you would have gotten from a class passively?

How many of those PF1 combat feats are no longer necessary since archery and twf penalties are no longer a thing? How much functionality is now baked into weapon crit specialization or the weapon properties themselves?

[Belisar]

Midnightoker wrote:

Belisar wrote:

Actually a fighter in PF2 get's 31 feats till level 20 while the same fighter just receives 21 feats in PF1. So actually even if a PF2 char multiclasses via archetype to receive some wanted gated feats he will still be better of in PF2. And this archetype feat approach is way more flexible than stuffing fixed subclasses and fixed abilities to fixed levels. I like it to be able to choose class abilities via class feats than gaining fixed abilities like it has been in PF1.

I do not understand why assigning fixed class abilities are making characters more unique than chosing from a pool of plenty class feats, like many argue.
And if you want to have every feat being accessible for every char you can literally scrap the class concept and then have everybody choose abilities freely like they see fit. Create feats to access spellcasting, create general feats to access rogue abilities and everybody can truly make unique characters.

As someone mentioned less than half of those are combat oriented (Skill, General, Ancestry)

And you're not counting he abilities fighters get that are now made into Feats, Weapon Specialization, Bravery, Armor Spec, etc

Better choosing freely from Skill, General, Ancestry feats than getting fixed fighter abilities which rather makes every fighter look the same.

[Alchemaic]

Data Lore wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

How many of those 31 are skill feats? How many ancestry feats?

And how many of those skill and ancestry feats were built into base skills and ancestries in PF1e? And how many feats need to be used to acquire things you would have gotten from a class passively?

How many of those PF1 combat feats are no longer necessary since archery and twf penalties are no longer a thing? How much functionality is now baked into weapon crit specialization or the weapon properties themselves?

Precise Shot not existing anymore because of the lack of the penalties is a good thing, but is also separate from any discussion on siloing class feats or the number of class feats available to be picked. That's a basic game mechanics change which then cascaded into a change in feat design. If that penalty still existed, you can bet that Precise Shot would too.

Also, apart from that feat, the number is the same. Point-Blank Shot is still there, and is the only (therefore required) Fighter 1 ranged feat. Double Shot (which we'll use as an analogue for Rapid Shot) is a level Fighter 4 feat. Triple Shot (which would effectively be the replacement for a BAB bump) is a Fighter 6 feat. That pretty much covers the feats "required" to be an archer, so they're pretty much equal if you ignore how the PF1e Fighter had everything up besides the BAB bump at level 3. Which leaves 3 levels to take stuff like Deadly Aim, Blind-Fight, Manyshot (if you wanted to, that feat always seemed kind of bad), Mobility/Shot on the Run, Improved Unarmed Strike/Deflect Arrows/Snatch Arrows, Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization if you wanted to be boring, or just delay your combat feats a bit to get some general feats like Skill Focus, Improved Initiative, or Animal Affinity.

Also, wow, after looking at the CRB again, I had forgotten that Precise Shot used to only be a prerequisite for Improved Precise Shot and Pinpoint Targeting. It just became so ubiquitous later on that I always associated it with being a problem feat tax feat.

[thflame]

I, personally, would not be opposed to a "classless" game.

Assuming class features are balanced appropriately for their level, and prerequisites prevent people from grabbing multiple top tier powers, what would be the harm?

I kinda wanted PF2 classes to work like Dark Souls classes. Your class is a starting point. What you build it into is completely up to you.

For example, a fighter could theoretically learn to cast almost as good as a wizard, but he would have to give up most of his fighter stuff after level 1 to do so.

Likewise, for a few feats, the wizard could cast in heavy armor and use weapons effectively, but he might miss out on his best spells to do so.

Both characters end up fairly similar, but they got there in different ways.

This change doesn't make any one character outright better than another just because they pick from multiple classes, and it lets PLAYERS choose what feats they want for their character concept.

If such a situation DOES occur where a certain combination of feats from multiple classes ends up being notably better than just sticking to the class' base feats, then the problem feats need tweaking.

On the topic of "niche protection", there is literally nothing I want less than to play a stereotypical member of X class. That's all niche protection does: enforce class stereotypes.

[MerlinCross]

Belisar wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

How many of those 31 are skill feats? How many ancestry feats?

And how many of those skill and ancestry feats were built into base skills and ancestries in PF1e? And how many feats need to be used to acquire things you would have gotten from a class passively?

Here the same answer applies:

Better choosing freely from Skill, General, Ancestry feats than getting fixed fighter abilities which rather makes every fighter look the same.
Unless you want to have every fighter look like a clone of each other.

Oh. No. Every fighter has AoO.

WELL back to the drawing board Paizo, we need every character ever made to be different.

[Data Lore]

Alchemaic wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

How many of those 31 are skill feats? How many ancestry feats?

And how many of those skill and ancestry feats were built into base skills and ancestries in PF1e? And how many feats need to be used to acquire things you would have gotten from a class passively?

How many of those PF1 combat feats are no longer necessary since archery and twf penalties are no longer a thing? How much functionality is now baked into weapon crit specialization or the weapon properties themselves?

Precise Shot not existing anymore because of the lack of the penalties is a good thing, but is also separate from any discussion on siloing class feats or the number of class feats available to be picked. That's a basic game mechanics change which then cascaded into a change in feat design. If that penalty still existed, you can bet that Precise Shot would too.

Also, apart from that feat, the number is the same. Point-Blank Shot is still there, and is the only (therefore required) Fighter 1 ranged feat. Double Shot (which we'll use as an analogue for Rapid Shot) is a level Fighter 4 feat. Triple Shot (which would effectively be the replacement for a BAB bump) is a Fighter 6 feat. That pretty much covers the feats "required" to be an archer, so they're pretty much equal if you ignore how the PF1e Fighter had everything up besides the BAB bump at level 3. Which leaves 3 levels to take stuff like Deadly Aim, Blind-Fight, Manyshot (if you wanted to, that feat always seemed kind of bad), Mobility/Shot on the Run, Improved Unarmed Strike/Deflect Arrows/Snatch Arrows, Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization if you wanted to be boring, or just delay your combat feats a bit to get some general feats like Skill Focus, Improved Initiative, or Animal Affinity.

Also, wow, after looking at the CRB again, I had forgotten that Precise Shot used to only be a prerequisite for Improved Precise Shot and Pinpoint Targeting. It just became so ubiquitous...

- PBS was required for Precise Shot as well and it sucked. No longer required fot anything now. Not sure where you get that. Can be very effective without it.

- Mobility/Shot on the Run is baked into the system now.
- Weapon Focus/Spec is baked into the class through weapon mastery
- Improved Init exists as a general feat
- Current implementation contains elements of Imp. Precise Shot without the feat.
- Deadly Aim (power attack for bows) basically exists as a weapon property now (damage when you crit instead, passive)
- Bows also get a sweet crit effect that PF1 couldnt simulate easily.

So, most of those PF1 feats were either garbage that got rid of penalties or are baked into how PF2 just works.

[Alchemaic]

Data Lore wrote:

- PBS was required for Precise Shot as well and it sucked. No longer required fot anything now. Not sure where you get that. Can be very effective without it.

- Mobility/Shot on the Run is baked into the system now.
- Weapon Focus/Spec is baked into the class through weapon mastery
- Improved Init exists as a general feat
- Current implementation contains elements of Imp. Precise Shot without the feat.
- Deadly Aim (power attack for bows) basically exists as a weapon property now (damage when you crit instead, passive)
- Bows also get a sweet crit effect that PF1 couldnt simulate easily.
So, most of those PF1 feats were either garbage that got rid of penalties or added mobility or are baked into how PF2 just works.

-PBS is "required" because it's the only option you have at that level.

-Weapon Mastery is analogous to the Fighter's Weapon Training. Weapon Focus/Specialization doesn't exist, and if it did would probably be called "Improved Weapon Proficiency" but otherwise fulfill a similar function.
-Improved Precise Shot is roughly analogous to the Incredible Aim feat, though that's a special action instead of a passive bonus to attacks.
-I would really strongly disagree that Deadly Aim is the same as the Deadly bonus damage. That's not important though.

-You're correct about Mobility/Shot on the Run
-You're correct about Improved Init
-I guess deadly's cool when critting? It's not as cool when you're on the other end of it.

The point that I was trying to make though is that people seem to be vastly understating the amount of options available in PF1e even with all the extra feats you "had" to take, and overstating the options in PF2e at the same time. You get "31" feats, but out of those you have maybe the same amount of options available as in PF1e when making a character, and in some cases you have less.

[Kalindlara]

Data Lore wrote:

How many of those PF1 combat feats are no longer necessary since archery and twf penalties are no longer a thing?

Archery, I'll grant. But two-weapon fighting in the PF1 sense (making additional attacks with off-hand weapons) no longer exists. Instead we have "attack once with your main hand's weapon, then attack with your second hand's weapon at your normal penalty". Which you could do in PF1 without any feats at all. So I suppose you are technically correct*: those penalties no longer exist, because you just can't do the thing at all, even with a penalty.

*The best kind of correct, I'm told.

[Deighton Thrane]

Data Lore wrote:

- PBS was required for Precise Shot as well and it sucked...

What? +1 to attack and damage was really good as a feat. A large percentage of fights are going to have targets within 30 feat, so it's not like it's one of those trap feats that's never going to apply. It may not be one of those character defining feats, but for a numbers feat, it's solid, to the point where if it wasn't a pre-req it would probably still fit into most ranged builds, if a little later in character level.

[PossibleCabbage]

Kalindlara wrote:

Archery, I'll grant. But two-weapon fighting in the PF1 sense (making additional attacks with off-hand weapons) no longer exists. Instead we have "attack once with your main hand's weapon, then attack with your second hand's weapon at your normal penalty". Which you could do in PF1 without any feats at all. So I suppose you are technically correct*: those penalties no longer exist, because you just can't do the thing at all, even with a penalty.

*The best kind of correct, I'm told.

Honestly, I'm pretty glad that "combine all these things correctly and you can make more attacks" is a thing of the past, whether it's rapid shot or 3.x style two-weapon fighting, etc. It's pretty hard to balance around "this person can roll more d20s" and it could easily get pretty out of hand if you stacked good options.

I wouldn't want PF1 style two-weapon fighting as an option in this system.

[Midnightoker]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Archery, I'll grant. But two-weapon fighting in the PF1 sense (making additional attacks with off-hand weapons) no longer exists. Instead we have "attack once with your main hand's weapon, then attack with your second hand's weapon at your normal penalty". Which you could do in PF1 without any feats at all. So I suppose you are technically correct*: those penalties no longer exist, because you just can't do the thing at all, even with a penalty.

*The best kind of correct, I'm told.

Honestly, I'm pretty glad that "combine all these things correctly and you can make more attacks" is a thing of the past, whether it's rapid shot of 3.x style two-weapon fighting, etc. It's pretty hard to balance around "this person can roll more d20s" and it could easily get pretty out of hand if you stacked good options.

I wouldn't want PF1 style two-weapon fighting as an option in this system.

There are other ways to satisfy the two weapon fighting style of fighting that doesn't involve additional/extra attack rolls. The style needs to be available as an option since it's not really a class concept, it's just a fighting style.

[Kalindlara]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Archery, I'll grant. But two-weapon fighting in the PF1 sense (making additional attacks with off-hand weapons) no longer exists. Instead we have "attack once with your main hand's weapon, then attack with your second hand's weapon at your normal penalty". Which you could do in PF1 without any feats at all. So I suppose you are technically correct*: those penalties no longer exist, because you just can't do the thing at all, even with a penalty.

*The best kind of correct, I'm told.

Honestly, I'm pretty glad that "combine all these things correctly and you can make more attacks" is a thing of the past, whether it's rapid shot of 3.x style two-weapon fighting, etc. It's pretty hard to balance around "this person can roll more d20s" and it could easily get pretty out of hand if you stacked good options.

I wouldn't want PF1 style two-weapon fighting as an option in this system.

That's certainly a valid perspective - I might even agree. I just think it kind of undermines the statement that "you don't need feats for two-weapon fighting anymore".

[Vic Ferrari]

thflame wrote:

I, personally, would not be opposed to a "classless" game.

Assuming class features are balanced appropriately for their level, and prerequisites prevent people from grabbing multiple top tier powers, what would be the harm?

I kinda wanted PF2 classes to work like Dark Souls classes. Your class is a starting point. What you build it into is completely up to you.

This is one off the reasons I really like Star Wars Saga Edition, almost a class-less system; multi-classing is expected, and between Feats and Talents, you can go nuts in customisation (so many choices/combinations). The only problem is at high levels the game breaks down, terribly, due to +Heroic level to Defences/Force Checks/Skills and BAB (fortunately easy to omit/houserule).

[Vidmaster7]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thflame wrote:

I, personally, would not be opposed to a "classless" game.

Assuming class features are balanced appropriately for their level, and prerequisites prevent people from grabbing multiple top tier powers, what would be the harm?

I kinda wanted PF2 classes to work like Dark Souls classes. Your class is a starting point. What you build it into is completely up to you.

This is one off the reasons I really like Star Wars Saga Edition, almost a class-less system; multi-classing is expected, and between Feats and Talents, you can go nuts in customisation (so many choices/combinations). The only problem is at high levels the game breaks down, terribly, due to +Heroic level to Defences/Force Checks/Skills and BAB (fortunately easy to omit/houserule).

Saga is the one where you get +5 to a trained skill and +5 from skill focus right? so you could easily make a jedi at first level have a +15 to a use the force skill check. which was pretty op. 1st level jedi pulling tie fighters from the sky. I like a lot of it but I had to house rules the skill system immediately.

[EberronHoward]

@ Rob Godfrey:

Quote:

Retributive Strike feels really passive, I have had it go off to good results(and other fights it never activated), but as a core class feature it feels off, a Paladin isn't (or wasn't) about being the meat shield, they get in the face of the enemies of the faith and end them, that is a totally different philosophy to being a walking kick me sign, and by it's nature forces one true buildism, pretty much reach weapon (to maximise RS chances) and heaviest armour you can find. Which leaves Abaddar and Erastil in the cold for starters, and really changes the feel of the class from the Smite based, aggressive play style to hanging out next to other characters hoping they eat a charge so you can RS the attacker.. I mean when it works I debuff a target, but it doesn't feel heroic, it's almost like the character is a terrain hazard.

Reach Weapon Paladin is one way to go. I've been running a Shield Paladin, and if I keep moving, I'm always where I'm needed to be. I'm the frontline, walking forward with my shield, so of course the other PCs are near me: I'm shielding them, and offering melee monsters the closest target. I think that if you go all in for offense, monsters would just attack you always. One benefit in being the highest AC possible and daring a foe to attack someone else is that there's no one right response. I've had several attacks miss my Paladin that would've hit the Rogue, but giving an enemy enfeeblement on their first action makes any second or third attack very ineffective.

And to comment on "ending enemies, not defending them", I think it does a good job of doing both of those things at the same time. You're defending by being offensive, threatening enemies with attacks if they hurt your allies, who will help destroy your enemies. It definitely assumes a more holistic teamplay, where encountering an enemy in melee synergizes with your teammates' plans, as opposed to being four strangers fighting the same enemy.

[Vic Ferrari]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thflame wrote:

I, personally, would not be opposed to a "classless" game.

Assuming class features are balanced appropriately for their level, and prerequisites prevent people from grabbing multiple top tier powers, what would be the harm?

I kinda wanted PF2 classes to work like Dark Souls classes. Your class is a starting point. What you build it into is completely up to you.

This is one off the reasons I really like Star Wars Saga Edition, almost a class-less system; multi-classing is expected, and between Feats and Talents, you can go nuts in customisation (so many choices/combinations). The only problem is at high levels the game breaks down, terribly, due to +Heroic level to Defences/Force Checks/Skills and BAB (fortunately easy to omit/houserule).

Saga is the one where you get +5 to a trained skill and +5 from skill focus right? so you could easily make a jedi at first level have a +15 to a use the force skill check. which was pretty op. 1st level jedi pulling tie fighters from the sky. I like a lot of it but I had to house rules the skill system immediately.

Yep, I house-ruled Skill focus to +1 (like Weapon Focus), which is a big deal when you have omitted + 1/2 Heroic level. Ability Scores seem to be lower, array/point buy.

[Vidmaster7]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thflame wrote:

I, personally, would not be opposed to a "classless" game.

Assuming class features are balanced appropriately for their level, and prerequisites prevent people from grabbing multiple top tier powers, what would be the harm?

I kinda wanted PF2 classes to work like Dark Souls classes. Your class is a starting point. What you build it into is completely up to you.

This is one off the reasons I really like Star Wars Saga Edition, almost a class-less system; multi-classing is expected, and between Feats and Talents, you can go nuts in customisation (so many choices/combinations). The only problem is at high levels the game breaks down, terribly, due to +Heroic level to Defences/Force Checks/Skills and BAB (fortunately easy to omit/houserule).

Saga is the one where you get +5 to a trained skill and +5 from skill focus right? so you could easily make a jedi at first level have a +15 to a use the force skill check. which was pretty op. 1st level jedi pulling tie fighters from the sky. I like a lot of it but I had to house rules the skill system immediately.

Yep, I house-ruled Skill focus to +1 (like Weapon Focus), which is a big deal when you have omitted + 1/2 Heroic level. Ability Scores seem to be lower, array/point buy.

Eh I just changed it to be more closely en-lined with pathfinder. mostly moving things from +5 to +3 little things here and their.

[Vic Ferrari]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thflame wrote:

I, personally, would not be opposed to a "classless" game.

Assuming class features are balanced appropriately for their level, and prerequisites prevent people from grabbing multiple top tier powers, what would be the harm?

I kinda wanted PF2 classes to work like Dark Souls classes. Your class is a starting point. What you build it into is completely up to you.

This is one off the reasons I really like Star Wars Saga Edition, almost a class-less system; multi-classing is expected, and between Feats and Talents, you can go nuts in customisation (so many choices/combinations). The only problem is at high levels the game breaks down, terribly, due to +Heroic level to Defences/Force Checks/Skills and BAB (fortunately easy to omit/houserule).

Saga is the one where you get +5 to a trained skill and +5 from skill focus right? so you could easily make a jedi at first level have a +15 to a use the force skill check. which was pretty op. 1st level jedi pulling tie fighters from the sky. I like a lot of it but I had to house rules the skill system immediately.

Yep, I house-ruled Skill focus to +1 (like Weapon Focus), which is a big deal when you have omitted + 1/2 Heroic level. Ability Scores seem to be lower, array/point buy.

Eh I just changed it to be more closely en-lined with pathfinder. mostly moving things from +5 to +3 little things here and their.

Ah, right on, I simply stripped it bare (removed the treadmill) and lowered some armour bonuses and DCs (force powers etc). I also did a 5th Ed conversion (5th Ed chassis).

[Vidmaster7]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thflame wrote:

I, personally, would not be opposed to a "classless" game.

Assuming class features are balanced appropriately for their level, and prerequisites prevent people from grabbing multiple top tier powers, what would be the harm?

I kinda wanted PF2 classes to work like Dark Souls classes. Your class is a starting point. What you build it into is completely up to you.

This is one off the reasons I really like Star Wars Saga Edition, almost a class-less system; multi-classing is expected, and between Feats and Talents, you can go nuts in customisation (so many choices/combinations). The only problem is at high levels the game breaks down, terribly, due to +Heroic level to Defences/Force Checks/Skills and BAB (fortunately easy to omit/houserule).

Saga is the one where you get +5 to a trained skill and +5 from skill focus right? so you could easily make a jedi at first level have a +15 to a use the force skill check. which was pretty op. 1st level jedi pulling tie fighters from the sky. I like a lot of it but I had to house rules the skill system immediately.

Yep, I house-ruled Skill focus to +1 (like Weapon Focus), which is a big deal when you have omitted + 1/2 Heroic level. Ability Scores seem to be lower, array/point buy.

Eh I just changed it to be more closely en-lined with pathfinder. mostly moving things from +5 to +3 little things here and their.

Ah, right on, I simply stripped it bare (removed the treadmill) and lowered some armour bonuses and DCs (force powers etc). I also did a 5th Ed conversion (5th Ed chassis).

Eh I played it and quit playing all before 5E came out. not that I wouldn't want to go back and play it some more. I'm just not as good at writing sci-fi stories as fantasy.